One who dares to say out loud what many only think.

The following is the opening section from a much longer article in The Spectator,
The myth of moderate Islam
Patrick Sookhdeo.
Dr Patrick Sookhdeo is Director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity.

"The funeral of British suicide bomber Shehzad Tanweer was held in absentia in his family’s ancestral village, near Lahore, Pakistan. Thousands of people attended, as they did again the following day when a qul ceremony was held for Tanweer. During qul, the Koran is recited to speed the deceased’s journey to paradise, though in Tanweer’s case this was hardly necessary. Being a shahid (martyr), he is deemed to have gone straight to paradise. The 22-year-old from Leeds, whose bomb at Aldgate station killed seven people, was hailed by the crowd as ‘a hero of Islam’.

Some in Britain cannot conceive that a suicide bomber could be a hero of Islam. Since 7/7 many have made statements to attempt to explain what seems to them a contradiction in terms. Since the violence cannot be denied, their only course is to argue that the connection with Islam is invalid. The deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Brian Paddick, said that ‘Islam and terrorists are two words that do not go together.’ His boss, the Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, asserted that there is nothing wrong with being a fundamentalist Muslim.

But surely we should give enough respect to those who voluntarily lay down their lives to accept what they themselves say about their motives. If they say they do it in the name of Islam, we must believe them. Is it not the height of illiberalism and arrogance to deny them the right to define themselves?

On 8 July the London-based Muslim Weekly unblushingly published a lengthy opinion article by Abid Ullah Jan entitled ‘Islam, Faith and Power’. The gist of the article is that Muslims should strive to gain political and military power over non-Muslims, that warfare is obligatory for all Muslims, and that the Islamic state, Islam and Sharia (Islamic law) should be established throughout the world. All is supported with quotations from the Koran. It concludes with a veiled threat to Britain. The bombings the previous day were a perfect illustration of what Jan was advocating, and the editor evidently felt no need to withdraw the article or to apologise for it. His newspaper is widely read and distributed across the UK.

By far the majority of Muslims today live their lives without recourse to violence, for the Koran is like a pick-and-mix selection. If you want peace, you can find peaceable verses. If you want war, you can find bellicose verses. You can find verses which permit only defensive jihad, or you can find verses to justify offensive jihad”. Cont’d in The Spectator.

My own opinion is that this Government has seriously down-played the spread of Islam in Europe because they have no plan to cope with the inevitable increased friction with the majority Secular/Christian populations.
An interesting article. I feel there are only two options:

Give those who feel that the views of the fundamentalist muslims are correct the option to relocate to wherever they or their ancestors come from.

Or to be imprisoned/exterminated.

My own option is to emigrate and leave you lot to sort it out. If it comes my way I will deal with it.
Because we do not have a re-publishing agreement with The Spectator.

Once again, please do not cut and paste other people's copyrighted work in it's entirety , it can lead to problems.

My own option is to emigrate and leave you lot to sort it out. If it comes my way I will deal with it.
Too right. I am outraged enough with my MCM Div being incompetant and blind, but my career is insignificant compared to this. I am quite tempted to up sticks and do one completely. Terrorists blow up innocent civilians, and the PM's wife defends them! Human rights? These people have no human rights, because they are not human, they are animals. Animals hunt and kill each other in the wild for no reason other than survival, food and domination. A Human attempts to co-exist with his neighbours.

Personally, although i think the suicide bombers and all their contemtable colleugues absolute scum, i'm afraid i now hold the opinion that those that defend them in court, British-born lawyers and such, those that claim these ANIMALS have 'human' rights, are EVEN WORSE THAN THOSE COMMITING THE ATROCITIES. I view the PM's wife in this bracket as well.

How are we ever going to rid our society of this evil when we are also supporting it as well?? 'Human' rights? The right for lawers to get paid more like, leaving the blood of the innocent on the ground
I find the article by Mr Sookhdeo to be quite interesting and I will follow it up by looking into the Koran, my copy of which was purchased initially to debate points with a Muslim chap at my old college.
It would have been fantastic if the secret service had packed his coffin with P4 then fragged the funeral procession that would give them something to think about. Racist bigoted bsatards

The sad fact is though, that in a recent survey (YouGov, I think), something like 24% of of all british muslims either fully agreed with the suicide bomber's aims, or had a good deal of sympathy with them. In that sort of environment, there is no way a peaceful version of the Koran will gain popular support.
I actually came from a fairly socialist working class background, but increasingly these days, I find myself becoming more right wing every day (Victor meldrew eat your heart out). Our largest cities are slowly being taken over by ethnic "minorities", many of whom have no intention of integrating into a British way of life, and some who actively seek the total destruction of it.
This trendy champagne socialist Government actively encouraged more immigrants to come here under the slogan of multiculturism, because they don't have to live in the ghettoes that have been formed. Various Government cuts over the years (including Tory) have ensured that there are almost no controls in place, and Blair's lot have no idea what they are dealing with. Foreigners involved in terrorist acts are granted citizenship despite having a criminal record as long as your arm, and illegal immigrants with forged visa stamps in their passports are allowed to come and go with complete freedom because of our lax border controls. We have no real idea how many actual illegal immigrants are here, but are nevertheless subsidisng them with billions of pounds of taxpayers money via dole payments, housing benefit, community relations grants and human rights lawyers to show them how to milk the system to the max.
Don't get me wrong, I am not against immigration, but I believe strongly that it must be strictly controlled and targeted at those who have something to offer Britain, not just every whingeing scrounger who turns up at Sangat. I have a sneaking suspicion that if this situation is allowed to continue, it will all end in tears. Not now, not in 10 years, but maybe in 30 years or 50, Britain could turn into another Bosnia.
Rant over. Is it time for me smarties yet?
Braindrain wrote

My own opinion is that this Government has seriously down-played the spread of Islam in Europe because they have no plan to cope with the inevitable increased friction with the majority Secular/Christian populations.
Mine too. Tony and cronies hope it won't affect them as they will be dead and gone or if the sh!t really kicks off in their lifetimes, they´ll have enough brass stashed to move and remain comfortable. In the worst case senario, forget about your pensions (us too).

Shnitcha said

The sad fact is though, that in a recent survey (YouGov, I think), something like 24% of of all british muslims either fully agreed with the suicide bomber's aims, or had a good deal of sympathy with them
Such a result is a lie. Tony tells us all the time that the vast majority of Muslims are decent and law abiding and there is nothing decent about a grain of sympathy for terrorists.

(Is the grain the SI unit of sympathy?)
‘Islam and terrorists are two words that do not go together.’ (Quote Brian Paddick)

Well, actually they do. As long as I've had a hole in my arrse, these cnuts have been blowing things (and themselves) up, taking hostages and being generally unsociable. Mr. Paddick. You are already viewed by the general populace as an ultra-Liberal. You do not need to continually make stupid statements to reinforce this opinion.

'... there is nothing wrong with being a fundamentalist Muslim.'(Quote Sir Ian Blair)

Oh? So it's all sh1t & giggles then is it? I suppose being a white supremacist is perfectly acceptable in your eyes too, eh? Let's face it cocker, Islam is nothing more than theological communism, and the Fundie Jundies are the Politbureau of the whole shooting match. Their aim is to take over the world, kill or convert the infidel, and catapult civilisation back to the bloody dark ages.

I think everyone in the West should take a holiday in Saudi to see what's in the offing. Islam is the fastest-growing belief structure in the world today - bigger than UFOs, space aliens and Stockport County winning the FA Cup. If allowed to flourish (which it is), the fundamentalist aspect will win over moderation & secularism - this is already occuring in (previously) moderate Muslim enclaves within the UK.

The West does have its foibles, and I have a problem with the ultra-permissive liberalism that pollutes most quarters of everyday life: the media's preoccupation with sex & celebrity and the cancer of political correctness to name but two. But the Islamification of the West doesn't bear thinking about. The two simply are at odds with each other, and it'll end in tears.

Fundamentalism must be stamped out, as it breeds nothing but hate. The teaching of Whabism - a particularly virulent and negative branch of Islam - in mosques up & down the UK will deliver nothing but problems for our social future, and whilst I personally consider those that espouse the downfall of the very society that accepts them as enemies of the State, I also consider the white, middle class, left-wing idiots who support them as even worse.
Mary Ann Sieghart made an interesting point over the weekend - muslim women are much much less disllusioned with the West than their brothers, husbands and fathers. They see the West as having provided them with an education and opportunities that were simply not available to them in their own countries. In this country they thrive, do well at school, work in great jobs and have freedoms and justice denied to them in the lands of their fathers. MAS point was that muslim men cannot subjugate their women like they can 'back home' and that contributed to their frustration and view that the West is decadent. her conclusion was that these men should return to tcountries more amenable to their viewpoint - but doubted their sisters would follow them.

As for suicide bombers my view is 'what is the fuss?' Walking or driving a bomb to it's destination causes the same devastation as planting it and walking away. Suicide bombers are more difficult to locate for sure but that is an operational issue, surely, not so much a moral one. If you want to talk about the morality of suicide bombers then you have to set it in context of the wider war (which is what, quite rightly, we are discussing here)

Could it be argued that the extremists are winning the war for the hearts and minds of young muslims? Is there not an argument to fight a similar war for the same hearts and minds?

I don't believe there is a conventional military solutionn to the spread of this kind of Islam. In the end, like all clashes of culture, it's going to need compromises, changes and years of discussion and communication. And the change is going to be more painful for the muslim communities than for us.
The US-based Free Muslims Coalition, which was set up after 9/11 to promote a modern and secular version of Islam, has proposed the following:
1. A re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century, where terrorism is not justified under any circumstances.
2. Separation of religion and state.
3. Democracy as the best form of government.
4. Secularism in all forms of political activity.
5. Equality for women.
6. Religion to be a personal relationship between the individual and his or her God, not to be forced on anyone.
Why not apply the same to Christianity, to prevent sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland and elsewhere? Or prevent US politicians from invoking "God" in their rhetoric?

The history of most of civilisation is bloody and unpleasant, and it is only in the last 50 years that we have seen a relatively peaceful West - that is, if you count the Cold War as peaceful. Western Europe and the US have has 15 years of post Cold War peace.

The point of Islamic terrorism is not to destroy Western civilisation. That is propaganda manipulated by neoconservatives to try and create the illusion of a worldwide conflict between 2 religions. Al Qaeda arose from a movement to topple the House of Saud and to reclaim the holy places in Saudi Arabia. Thanks to bungled and incompetent Western foreign policy - the invasion of Iraq and the criminally mishandled occupation - the movement has been inflamed rather than contained.

I don't agree with the Blair and Paddick platitudes but the idea of a global "war on terror" is exactly what the terrorists and the neocons want.
F_P, simplistic possibly but drivel, I disagree.
I believe we have been and are poorly served (even betrayed possibly) by the current lot in Westminster- of whatever party. In fact they are weak, lack vision and chose expediancy and votes over the well being of the majority in this country. 'Liberal left' and 'politically correct' have become perjorative terms for many, and rightly so IMO. 'Liberal' in UK is actually far from liberal - unless you agree with their orthodoxy. PC'ness imposes limitations on free speech and has to be fought at all costs.
Minority opinion seems to be accomodated at every turn, and in apparent coordination with the BBC, people with opposing views have been marginalised and branded as extreme.(ask the Tories about that..!)
Fortunately there are people ready to speak out against this lunacy and to try to analyze how this situation has come about. If we as a nation do not wake up and call our so-called leaders to account, Britain will be a very different country in 50 years time.
Here is someone else prepared to 'speak out':


When you delve deep into this stuff, it's pretty scary. I'm more than certain that more intelligent men than me have done so, but what concerns me, is what they intend to do about it. We have seen our country became more liberal than ever, with no prospect of stopping now, with the Caddick's of this world and the Mrs Blair's. Haven't these people, who are supposedly more intelligent than I, seen beyond their own personal ambitions? Now that we have had the 'unthinkable' happen in our country, isn't it plain enough for those in power to see what the future holds?

I wonder what our grandparents would have thought of all of this? Perhaps they should have sat back and let the Germans take over. I'm not sure what the situation today would have been like, but we wouldn't have had any fundametalists (Apologies to any Jewish readers, this isn't the best example for me to have made, but it's Sunday morning and I'm still asleep).

It's obviously a growing problem and one which will gain popularity amongst dissaffected Muslim youth, no matter how many deny this. Why can't those in power wake up and see what the potential is, instead of promoting gays and liberals into such high powered jobs just because it's 'trendy' to do so, who will give this country away.

I wonder what some of the Ministers say when they are in private conversation?

They lied about the war, they lied about immigration. If you spoke out about either you were pilloried. All this political correctness will come back to haunt us. Sadly, it'll be our children who will bear the brunt of it, even though they will grow up with it and become accustomed to it.

Accusing all Muslims of being terrorists could be akin to accusing all Irish Catholics of having been the same, yet I feel that there is more scope within the Muslim communities to spread hatred and intollerance, particularly when they are so driven by their religion. Yet we sit back and allow them to do so. We even create laws to protect them and tie ourselves up in our own rules and regulations whilst dubious legal bodies make a fortune out of our taxes from the situation.

It's our own fault. We voted these people in. They blatantly ignore us and treat us with contempt, whilst looking after their own. In their srabble for power, they have appeased evryone in order to gain that extra vote. They have appeased extremists and terrorists, but this situation will not have the same ending as the N Ireland problem. There is nothing wrong with a hard line approach when your enemies seek to exploit your weaknesses. Our weaknesses are our regulations on immigration and freedom of speech. In Blairs attempts to eradicate the class system, he has opened the gates for 'barely adequates' to exploit situations to their own benefit and for those they favour.

They have ignored the will of the majority and it is being exploited.


Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Biscuits - good post there.

However, accusing politicians of lying is like accusing the Pope of being catholic - it is what they do for a living.

There has been a huge sea-change in the liberties allowed in this country and taken as a whole they have been good for everybody, we do live in a free country. However IMO the mistake has been in giving people more freedom and political correctness but not demanding responsibility from these people in return. It is similar to being given rank and priviledge - with that comes responsibility.

The people who demand 'their rights' should be made to exercise their responsibilities for receiving these rights. If they can't then they don't get them.

Just my opinion, I am naive enough to think that if everyone had a bit more consideration for their neighbour (at either national or personal level) then the world would live more closely together. I am not however naive enough to think this will happen in my lifetime.

I disagree - as you say the majority voted this Government in. Brian Paddick is where he is because he presumably is a good cop - gays have served in the police forever, just as they have in the military - this debate is not about promoting unsuitable people because of their 'liberal' views or sexual orientation. Extremists would have bombed London whatever political party has been in power.

I think the thrust of your post is the real issue however - how we deal with the growth of militant Islamism (is that a proper word?). I don't know how close this situation is to others we have faced in the past (NI, Malaya etc) but a measured and considered response using the range of options open to us is surely the way ahead. Not as satisfying to some as nuking eastern Afghanistan or bombing people at their prayers in Mosques perhaps, but surely wiser.


Paddick, may or may not be a good cop, I'll leave the decision there for our Met readers to comment upon. Please don't think that you are promoted in the police for being good at you job. That is niaviety in the extreme Prod. They are the same as us and every other large organisation. The Met are one of the biggest offenders in this politically correct mess and I wouldn't be surprised if his 'gayness' influenced his career progression. It would have been seen as a good move in the right direction for the 'gay' recruiting campaign, given the Met's earlier 'canteen culture' reputation.

Yep, you are right that this thread is about something else, but the thread brought into question our 'permissiveness' in the eyes of the Muslim and this is what led me to my point. We live in a permissive society where we appease minorities often at the expense of the majority. Extremist groups are a minotirty, but our 'permissive' Government has allowed them to flourish, because they didn't want to lose the Muslim vote........given the size of it nowadays!

If this and other Governments weren't so hell bent on liberalism, perhaps we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today. Liberals, by their very nature will be accepting of others. It's how they succeeded so why should they question the motives of others.

I will excuse your outburst as this morning we did not wake up together. Had we done so you wouldn't have even considered arguing with a man.......particularly one as virile as me.

Similar threads

Latest Threads